The School Evaluation Summary assignment required students to synthesize their school’s technology environment. To do this we used Sibley and Kimball’s Technology Use Plan Primer to analyze the technological maturity of our school. In the Maturity Model Benchmarks table, there are four stages: Emergent, Islands, Integrated, and Intelligent. Prior to this survey, I had not thought too much about the different levels schools could be at with their technology. This survey made me realize the need for an excellent technology plan for school districts. It showed a digital inequality among departments within our school district. Lastly, it exposed technology gaps within out district. By exposing these issues, school districts can strengthen their technologies.
Standard 4.2 Resource Management: Examined the effectiveness and justification of school resources, such as, personnel, budget, supplies, time, and instructional resources.
Standard 5.1 Problem Analysis: Collected, analyzed, and interpreted technology data from my school district to understand what needs to be modified to help improve instruction within my district.
Standard 5.2 Criterion – Referenced Measurement: I used the Technology Use Plan Primer to analyze the technological maturity of our school.
Standard 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation: Used strategies to analyze and evaluate information gathered on technologies within my district to modify and improve instruction.
Standard 5.4 Long Range Planning: Assignment required us to look at future technology planning for three to five years and decide what technology needs are necessary for success in the future.
The New Media Consortium (NMC) released their Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education. In this report they identified a comprehensive listing of technologies to watch for, key trends, and challenges that will affect education and their timeframes. Technology featured in the near-term horizon we should see introduced within the next 12 months; midterm horizon, within two to three years; far-term horizon within four to five years. Six technologies featured in the NMC Horizon Report to watch for:
Near Term (within 12 months)
1. Massively open online courses
2. Tablet computing
Mid-Term (within two to three years)
3. Games and gamification
4. Learning analytics
Far-Term (four to five years)
5. 3D printing
6. Wearable technology
Significant Challenges
1. Faculty training still does not acknowledge the fact that digital media literacy continues to rise in importance as a key skill in every discipline and profession.
2. The emergence of new scholarly forms of authoring, publishing, and researching outpace sufficient and scalable modes of assessment.
3. Too often it is education’s own processes and practices that limit broader uptake of new technologies.
4. The demand for personalized learning is not adequately supported by current technology or practices.
5. New models of education are bringing unprecedented competition to the traditional models of higher education.
6. Most academics are not using new technologies for learning and teaching, nor for organizing their own research.
One of the challenges in the report that relates to my school district is challenge #1; Faulty training still does not acknowledge the fact that digital media literacy continues its rise in importance as a key skill in every discipline and profession.
The challenge that I face in my classroom with respect to challenge #1 is that I have good technology, but have not received the training on it. It is rare that a school district has enough technical support for the school and for that matter for an individual classroom.
This year, six classrooms in our district received Promethean boards through a grant. I was one of the fortunate classrooms, but we had never been formally trained on them. Our one technology coordinator for the district had shown us how to turn them on and how to import our PowerPoint’s, but that was the extent of our training. I believe that this challenge could be overcome by having someone from the company come in and show us how to use the board like it is supposed to be used or have one of us trained so that we can support each other if needed, and utilize the board so it can facilitate and enrich our classrooms. Once I become adept to this technology in my classroom, my goal would be to make the board interactive with tablets and student response systems (clickers). By incorporating technology into my classroom, it would enhance learning in a personalized and interactive environment. I have asked my principal if we could purchase a mobile lab to share among CTE classrooms and I was immediately turned down because of the cost. Afterwards, my first thought was to look for grants for tablets so I could push past the current limitation of technology to allow for deeper and more diverse engagements. However, after previously researching BYOD for our annotated bibliography assignment, I believe I would be able to convince my principal to incorporate this instead of purchasing a mobile lab.
Student response systems (clickers) help give instant formative assessment on students. However, “Sets of 20-30 student responders can cost up to $1,200 (Ferriter).” Knowing that these clickers are only one classroom set, I continued to research what other schools were doing. “At Canfield High School in Canfield, OH, the computing tool of choice isn’t netbooks but iPod Touches (Demski).” The school purchased iPods for the classroom, but because these are more expensive than some student responders they are also incorporating iTunes into their lessons. “Ruggieri has students create in iTunes a modern soundtrack for The Scarlet Letter and uploads it onto their iPod touches (Demski).” At Champlain College, librarians have students use their own mobile phones for student response systems polling. “According to the Pew Center, 77% of 17 year olds talk with their friends by text daily (Burkhardt & Cohen).” By implementing BYOD into my classroom I could have students utilize their iPods, mobile phones, or tablets and just purchase the software at a fraction of the mobile cart and clicker cost.
References
Burkhardt, A., & amp; Cohen, S. F. (2012). Turn Your Cell Phones On. Communications in Information Literacy, 6(2).
Demski, J. (2012). A Quicker Clicker. T.H.E. Journal, 37(3).
Ferriter, W. M. (2009). Student Responders: Feedback at Their Fingertips. Educational Leadership, 67(3).
Xtranormal Video
New Media Consortium Horizon Report 2013 Higher Education Video
AECT Standards
Standard 1.3 Instructional Strategies: Selection of instructional strategies and materials that support individual learning needs.
Standard 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies and 2.4 Integrated Technologies: Organize information found online and electronically store information on specific topics.
Standard 3.1 Media Utilization, 3.2 Diffusion of Innovations, and 3.3Implementation and Institutionalization: Identify strategies for selecting current technology and materials to implement into classrooms.
Standard 4.2 Resource Management: Justifies implementing technologies and looking at their effectiveness for the learning environment.
JULIA TYLER 